Latino Voters in the 2008 Presidential Election

Aimee Sobhani, Politics

Without a doubt, Latino voters will be deciding the 2008 Presidential election so the fact that The Economist reports that they are shying away from John McCain can only mean good things for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Historically, the Democratic Party has done well with minorities so it may not seem like a big deal that Obama has the support of the Latinos. Thanks to their strong Catholic roots, Latinos tend to be more conservative on social issues, meaning that they may be apprehensive to vote for liberal Democrats like Obama. However, Latinos do not approve of the conservative position on immigration, which is perhaps the most important issue to them. Thus, neither party really has the right to believe that they have Latino voters "in the bag."

However, Democrats definitely have a chance of winning a large majority of the Latino vote. Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, ex-Presidential candidate, and prominent Hispanic politician, endorsed Obama once his try for the nomination ended. Obviously, Latinos aren't going to automatically vote for Obama because Richardson wants them too, but his endorsement definitely doesn't hurt. Richardson's support is particularly important in this race, especially given the racial animosity between blacks and Hispanics.

Hispanics have the potential to be politically potent. They make up a majority of voters in many voting districts in the Southwest. Though many may not be registered to vote, multiple radio campaigns are encouraging Hispanics to get involved in the political process. With the last couple of elections being very close, a small number of voters will decide this year's election, and those voters could very well be Hispanic.

Sinophobia, Anyone?

Soo-Ryum Yang
Politics

The upcoming Olympics in Beijing and its unending controversy have finally unfurled what was slowly developing within global consciousness: sinophobia. This mostly rational and sometimes irrational fear of China has surpassed Anti-Americanism abroad, which has been increasingly popular in Europe and the Middle East. As Anti-Americanism is more about Bush, Anti-Chinese sentiment is also more about human rights abuses- it is about their successes and failures as an emerging global superpower.

These are some potential factors associated with the rise in sinophobia:
(1) China's steady economic growth during this global recession could trigger a noxious combination of suspicion and envy.
(2) The increasingly powerful Chinese military should worry both neo-cons and hippies alike.
(3) Unlike the Bush Administration, the Chinese government at least believes in global warming, but does not want to do anything about it. Their rationale: the West dumped all the soot in the sky during the industrialization; it is only fair for China to do the same.
(4) Irrefutable evidence that China is directly related with the violence in Darfur.
(5) Hillary, Dalai Lama and Hollywood. They really don't like China, and they are sure powerful.
(6) American and European parents think when something is made in China, it has been dipped in lead, mercury and dark matter.
(6) The C-word. Yes, they are communists even though China is brooding with child laborers, wealthy socialites, poor migrants, liberal bloggers, conservative government, American tourists, etc. One thing for sure: If Mao were alive, he would not be pleased to see his country run by CEO's and capitalistic savagery.

Yes, I will join the unanimous chorus of commentators around the world and declare that China will be the next hegemonic superpower. However, if the world starts hating China now, what will happen when it actually becomes the sole, dominant global authority? I guess we will just have to wait 20 more years for that answer.

Thank You ICC: Charges Against Sudan's President Expected In the Future

Aimee Sobhani
Politics

After 5 years and 300,000 deaths, the Economist reports that the International Criminal Court (ICC) will bring present evidence against Sudan's president, Omar Al-Bashir. This move could result in Al-Bashir's indictment for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. This move shows exactly why the ICC is an important, necessary international body.

I've written in favor of the ICC before, and I strongly believe that the U.S. should take steps to join the Court. A belief that is central to liberal political theory is that one way that "world peace" may be achieved is through involvement in international organizations. This concept is very simple: international organizations force states to work together, thus lessening the likelihood of war.

Currently, the United States is not part of the ICC. Clinton was apprehensive about joining the organization because he thought it might undermine the Constitution, and Bush totally opposes American participation in the Court. This fear partially stems from the fact that if an American commits a heinous crime, he or she might be subject to the ICC's jurisdiction instead of the jurisdiction of the American court. However, this fear is unfounded, mainly due to the fact that it is unlikely that someone raised with American values would commit a crime so severe that he or she would end up in front of the ICC. In addition, the ICC only has jurisdiction over an American criminal if it deems that proceedings in an American court were lacking in some way--also unlikely given the sophistication of the American judicial system.

If America chooses to join the ICC, the organization could be strengthened significantly. Though the U.S. is losing popularity because of some its policy decisions, there is no doubt that the U.S. is still one of the most powerful nations in the world. If we join the ICC, we will be able to influence the Court's decisions and the rules that govern it. There doesn't seem to be anything negative about that.

Never fear, though. Barack Obama is a supporter of the ICC and internationalism in general so it is possible that the United States will be involved in the ICC in the near future.

I Wish I Were Karl Rove...Then I Could Ignore Subpoenas, Too

Aimee Sobhani
Politics

Karl Rove was supposed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee today, but he and his lawyer believe that Rove has the power to ignore the Committee's request for him to testify. Rove's lawyer claims that Rove is protected by "executive privilege," meaning that Rove can ignore the subpoena and avoid questions dealing with him and his cronies dismissing U.S. attorneys who they saw as threats to Rove's well-oiled political machine.

Rove is not the first member of the Bush administration to claim that he is protected from answering to Congress or the courts. Bush himself has used the excuse multiple times to avoid answering awkward questions and to protect his faithful followers from answering them, too.

Executive privilege is to the executive branch what "pleading the fifth" is to private citizens. They are both meant to protect individuals from giving up self-incriminating information. While this power is a Constitutional right for individuals, the Constitution doesn't exactly give the same power to a public entity such as the government. Citizens have a right to know what elected officials are saying behind closed doors; we have the right to know if something suspicious is going on, right?

Citing executive privilege usually means that an executive has something to hide. Nixon claimed the privilege during the Watergate scandal, and Clinton too used the power as a way to bypass answering questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Given the secrecy and lying done by the present administration, it's not surprising that it too hides itself under the curtain of executive privilege.

I'm sure executive privilege has its place in the American government, but it seems kind of unnecessary in Rove's case. It is undeniable that he is responsible for several rather illegal actions, and he needs to be punished.